AGF & LLS

The Family Court of Australia heard an appeal by the father against interlocutory parenting orders made by Jordan J. The orders stipulated that the child, L, reside with the mother and precluded the father from exercising contact with L. The Director-General of the Department of Child Safety intervened in the proceedings and became a party. The appeal was dismissed by the Full Court, with written reasons to follow.

The legal issues before the Full Court included whether the trial judge erred in exercising her discretion regarding L's residence and contact arrangements, particularly in light of allegations of sexual and emotional abuse. The court also considered the father's refusal to contemplate supervised contact and the procedural fairness of the proceedings, including the intervention of the Department of Child Safety and the consideration of expert reports. The father's appeal raised numerous grounds, including allegations that the trial judge failed to read all the material, ignored expert reports, and acted unfairly in presenting the father's case.

The Full Court reasoned that the trial judge's decision to order L to reside with the mother and to preclude father-child contact was a proper exercise of discretion, given the child's well-settled environment with the mother and the absence of compelling reasons for a change. The court noted that the father strenuously opposed any order for supervised contact and indicated he would not avail himself of such contact. The court also addressed the father's grounds of appeal, finding that while some grounds were improperly framed, they did not warrant striking out the appeal given the father was self-represented. The court applied principles relating to the exercise of judicial discretion and the paramountcy of the child's welfare.

The appeal was dismissed, and the interlocutory orders made by Jordan J. were affirmed.